Re: [PATCH 05/29] x86: Base IBT bits

[Edgecombe, Rick P]

On Fri, 2022-02-18 at 17:49 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> @@ -1861,6 +1861,21 @@ config X86_UMIP
>           specific cases in protected and virtual-8086 modes.
> Emulated
>           results are dummy.
>  
> +config CC_HAS_IBT
> +       # GCC >= 9 and binutils >= 2.29
> +       # Retpoline check to work around 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93654
> +       def_bool $(cc-option, -fcf-protection=branch -mindirect-
> branch-register) && $(as-instr,endbr64)
> +
> +config X86_IBT
> +       prompt "Indirect Branch Tracking"
> +       bool
> +       depends on X86_64 && CC_HAS_IBT
> +       help
> +         Build the kernel with support for Indirect Branch Tracking,
> a
> +         hardware supported CFI scheme. Any indirect call must land
> on
> +         an ENDBR instruction, as such, the compiler will litter the
> +         code with them to make this happen.
> +
> 

Could you call this something more specific then just X86_IBT? Like
X86_KERNEL_IBT or something? It could get confusing if we add userspace
IBT, or if someone wants IBT for KVM guests without CFI in the kernel.